The Antiplanner joined Alan Pisarski (Commuting in America) and Gabriel Roth (Street Smart) in giving presentations at the Cato Institute on Tuesday, September 15. It was an honor to be with two such distinguished speakers; Pisarski practically invented the business of transportation data collection and Roth was one the world’s first modern proponents of road privatization.
All The food must be properly balanced cialis buy cialis and contain the proper amount of nutrients. It improves testosterone and strengthens the reproductive organs. a number of them consist of garlic, goat cialis discount generic weed, ginkgo biloba, and arginine. Therefore, people who attend computer and technology schools are able to be sure that they are receiving and order viagra prescription icks.org education that they are entitled to. Let’s take a look at how sildenafil tablets viagra brand can be effective against erectile dysfunction. three presentations can be downloaded: Alan Pisarski‘s is 2.3 MB; Gabriel Roth‘s is 180 KB; and the Antiplanner‘s graphics-laden presentation is 12.8 MB (including a movie of Ray LaHood promising to coerce Americans out of their cars). If you don’t have PowerPoint, you can download this free PowerPoint viewer from Microsoft (Mac version).
Randal: I wonder if Cato would pick up the tab to send you to a graphical arts or graphical presentation class or two. People can’t take a handout home and reflect on what you said when you make them this way. If this is your plan, disregard. Have them send Pisarski too.
DS
Couple of things:
Both the AP’s and Mr. Pisarki’s presentations seem to touch on the environmental damage the combustion engine does, and hint at technological (i.e. non-gas) solutions to this. Aren’t government bureaucrats going to have to come up with some new user fee for roads once non-gas vehicles become more common? Are Prius owners stealing from the rest of the driving population? Is the current user fee system just propping up the status quo?
Also, I’ve linked to it a few times, but “light rail now” shows on their web site that the cars preform worse per passenger mile than most inner city transit modes. Whom am I to believe? Both have a strong (and often over stated) agenda (Light Rail Now v. Dedicated to the sunset of Government Planning).
Again (and again and again and again), I wish that the anti-planners out there, were more pro-clean vehicle and less anti-government. I’ve personally found that strong advocation for creative solutions to problems manifests better and quicker results than advocation against the problem. But then again, what would America be without cranky old white guys?
I read that that the chance a U.S. household that 1 in 3 owners of a Prius also owns an SUV. (That is from Harper’s Index, October issue.)
I think that is a very rational situation for many families. Most families in the US have two vehicles, and it makes sense that one vehicle is big enough to hold the whole family and the dog (or other items). It is very smart that the second vehicle be selected for the one-person trips, such as commuting to work or one-person errands.
Borealis,
Agreed. My parents own 2 prius’s and 1 SUV. They go to work in the Prius and plow snowy driveways with the SUV. Do you think that the people that own both often use the SUV for sport and heavy utility, as opposed to the “others.”
Alan Pisarski thinks people are being “coerced” out of their cars. I’ve lived in suburbia my whole life and it’s the other way around. I’ve actually been coerced into my car. Providing walk-ability (not just sidewalks) and transit options is not coercion.
On a side note, obesity is not a good thing! (Oh noes, walkable neighborhoods, the criminalz will come and rob my home if the streets are connected!!). BTW, we all pay higher health care rates from individual choices, one of them being obesity.
Obese people = costing healthy people extra. Reducing car use is a good thing, until those people can willingly pay more for their premiums.
Heavens, Antiplanner!
You have confused mobility with accessibility, for a start. Then, you say that cars are more energy efficient than transit per passenger mile (29), and then you say that this is because the transit goes in the wrong places (30, 32) – and the conclusion to this is -?
38 – “It is no coincidence that traffic congestion has severely grown since Congress began diverting highway funds to transit in 1982.” You’ve got six – count them – lanes of traffic already in each direction – and you want more?
47 – “But just requiring cost effectiveness is not enough. The Utah legislature required that transportation planning be cost effective, but a state auditor found that the Salt Lake planning agency “cooked the books†to make politically favored projects appear more cost effective than they really were.”
That’s true of all projects, road and rail. If you say that someone can only have some money if their cost-effectiveness meets a threshold then – magically – it will. Rail schemes over-estimate how many people will use their services. Road schemes over-estimate how much the time saving from more capacity is worth to cars drivers, who sit at home and watch TV, and stand around the water-cooler at work…
ws, it is wrong to imply that cars cause obesity which then causes health problems which then cause higher costs for us.
a) In the US, most people pay for little of their health car costs. It may cost their employer more, but not them.
b) The other problem with that is that obesity in and of itself causes very few health issues. Modern medicine is bearing that out with things such as the big meta study by Mayo a few years back that found obese people with low levels of regular exercise are far healthier than skinny people who get none (ie exercise is larger determant of health than weight)
c) There is no reason to believe a lack of transit causes obesity. For example, western Europeans use transit 2 to 3 times as much as Canadians. Despite this, obesity rates in countries like Germany and Spain are on par with the US. In the United Kingdom only 2/3 of trips occur by car compared to the US’s 88% yet the UK’s rate of obesity is nearly as high a the US.
it is wrong to imply that cars cause obesity which then causes health problems which then cause higher costs for us.
No it is not.
But it is more correct to state outright that our land-use patterns contribute to obesity which then causes…etc.
The other problem with that is that obesity in and of itself causes very few health issues. Modern medicine is bearing that out with things such as the big meta study by Mayo a few years back that found obese people with low levels of regular exercise are far healthier than skinny people who get none (ie exercise is larger determant of health than weight)
Um, no.
Cherry-picking results one likes is a bad idea. One must ask oneself why medical professionals across the entire planet are worried about growing obesity. Are they worried because it makes people healthier?! Come now.
There is no reason to believe a lack of transit causes obesity. For example, western Europeans use transit 2 to 3 times as much as Canadians. Despite this, obesity rates in countries like Germany and Spain are on par with the US. In the United Kingdom only 2/3 of trips occur by car compared to the US’s 88% yet the UK’s rate of obesity is nearly as high a the US.
These talking points you found are false. In the future, you may want to think about where you get your information and whether it is (mis)information.
World obesity rates. Note how none of the countries mentioned in the italicized are close to the US. As several of us have mentioned many times (and linked to many times), SMARTRAQ and Larry Frank’s group are showing in the US how land-use patterns contribute to obesity.
HTH.
DS
I would have suggested that obesity is caused by a lifestyle in which an individual consistently consumes more k-cals than the individual burns. But oh, that answer is too simple, that must not be it.
I would have suggested…[b]But oh, that answer is too simple, that must not be it.
No.
That answer is not too simple, it is too simplistic.
HTH.
DS
Dan,
H2O is simplistic as well, and yet you continue to drink water without regard for its failure to be sufficiently complex for your sensibilities.
The essential reason why social scientists regard complexity as a virtue is that they reject the human method of cognition, i.e, reason, whereas physical scientists regard simplicity as a virtue, because they tend to embrace reason.
Further explanation here.
I am on the side of the physical scientists, and always will be. I don’t have to use artificial complexity to distort meaning to accomplish an agenda. I am perfectly willing to identify a rose as just a rose. The fact that you disagree says something about your purposes. This is, of course, of no concern to you, because a pragmatist’s ends justify any means.
“Despite this, obesity rates in countries like Germany and Spain are on par with the US.”
Get real. In touristic regions throughout Europe, the Americans always stand out–they’re the fat ones.
Mike, thank you for helping my and prk’s point for us.
Stopping at the first ‘why’ rarely gets to the full issue. You must not be an analyst or engineer or scientist or naturalist or detective for a living.
HTH.
DS
Dan,
You know how I know you either didn’t read or failed to comprehend my reply?
You celebrated simplicity then decried artificial complexity, neither of which pertained to why human behavior and land use patterns contribute to obesity.
Your attempts at either looking brilliant, or misdirecting to dissemble away from the topic are really good, lad, and keep trying. Gooooood! Good try! Keep trying! Good boy.
But srsly, how about this as an idea: take your Rand-toting thunderous prrrrragmatism and join the medical field to set those non-pragmatists and artificial complexiters straight. They’re all off on wild non-Randian goose chases. The worldwide medical profession needs you, lad. They need you bad. Real bad. The whole world is in on it.
Why can’t those durn geese just stay in their simple pen?!? Showem how, lad. Showem how Objectivist geese get fat.
DS
Dan,
Objectivism rejects pragmatism. You epic fail once again.
Your pathos appears again; I reiterate my urging for you to seek the help of a mental health professional. Normal people don’t just go off their rocker like you do in your second and third paragraphs. Again: that is NOT normal. Not even for an Internet Tough Guy like you.
Yet, after all this, your assertion in #9 was too simplistic. Your Objectivism stopped too soon.
You haven’t shown anything, lad, except prolixity and your age.
DS
BTW, prk, this was in duh Post today. Maren is a nice woman and very dedicated:
DS
How much is the Antiplanner paying Dan to drive up his web traffic? After 18 posts before this one, Dan has 6 of them and is clearly trying to drive other people to respond to his comments. Can I find out if Dan and the Antiplanner have the same IP address?
“After 18 posts before this one, Dan has 6 of them…”
Narcissism. Logorrhea. No life. Done on the government dime.
A nice video about privatization. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl-CfQvz21Y
Andy:
Every good story needs a heel, I suppose.
Mike,
You comment just as much as Dan. In fact, this thread is basically an argument between the two of you.
bennett,
In this thread, I’m now at six posts like Dan, though only four of mine occurred while he was still participating. So, sure, if you like. But most days I don’t say anything, while there is rarely a day he skips. Overall I’m behind Dan on posts by a double-digit order of magnitude.
DS –> I didn’t cherry pick anything. Look at the rates of auto use for trips for various countries and their rates of obesity. If there was even a correlation, you should see them there. But they’re not. If they were, for example, less dense and taking more auto trip Canada’s obesity rate should be higher than places like Spain, Ireland, Britain and Germany. It’s not that those things don’t make a difference. But it’s clearly not the diving factor and likely makes little difference. Especially when taking into account other factors like wealth (more money, more to spend on auto trips).
The same with obesity. Yes, we know there is a correlation with it and certain diseases. But studies like the Mayo’s show that heart health is largely determined by exercise, not weight. That it’s not as simple as being thin == healthy.
As for access to healthy foods, maybe that is the issue. My own amateur hypothesis is that it’s a matter of taste. I would argue obesity, as far as it occurs because of eating is a result of a simple palette. They’re attracted to sugar and fat and not more complex tastes. It’s not that they can’t buy asparagus, spinach or califlower but that they choose not to because they’ve never acquired a taste for bitter things (note, only about 10% of the population is predisposed to disliking those with genes that cause the bitterness to be much, much more pronounced).
For example, go to a wine tasting. You rarely see obese people there. Wine isn’t something you just like, it has all sorts of complex auromas and tastes for which a liking is acquired.
Again, it’s not that obesity doesn’t have a correlation to certain health issues. But it’s much more complex to than that. Exercise is a bigger determinant than weight for heart disease. And just as a lack of exercise isn’t good for the heart, it also leads to the body burning less calories.
There is a rich literature, prk, on the relationship between such things as I explained above. The Mayo findings have been superseded and expanded upon by the literature, as I explained above, and the entire planet’s public health community disagrees with you, as I implied above.
But choose to believe what you wish, as we have moved way, way beyond where you are so it matters little.
DS